Luckin COO Fabricated Sales Data
Luckin’ Coffee, China’s largest coffee chain, is suffering the consequences of publishing false sales numbers. Ernst & Young discovered the misconduct, which took place in 2019, during an audit, concluding that “management personnel engaged in fabricated transactions which led to the inflation of the Company’s income, costs and expenses.” An investigation blames the chief operating officer and others.
A report details “the fraud and the fundamentally broken business,” including “smoking gun” evidence and “red flags.” The anonymous authors compare video recordings of store foot traffic to reported sales.
In response to the news, Luckin’s stock declined between 75 and 80%. Starting in February, when the anonymous report was made public, the company has been posting notices about the situation on its website.
Discussion:
Analyze the anonymous report, including the audiences, objectives, organization, writing style, etc. What works well, and how would suggest that the writer improve the report?
How well did the company address concerns? Begin with the first response in February.
What leadership character dimensions does this situation illustrate?
WHO Official Bungles Interview
World Health Organization (WHO) senior adviser Bruce Alyward wanted to avoid a reporter’s question about Taiwan becoming a member of the organization. A video of the interview shows an awkward exchange, with Alyward remaining silent (but we still see him moving and hear sounds), saying “Sorry, I couldn’t hear your question,” asking the reporter to move onto another question, and then, finally, ending the call. During a follow-up call, Alyward refers to China and then abruptly ends the call.
Taiwan has had good success in controlling COVID-19, and the government claims to have warned the WHO back in December 2019 about the contagion.
As of today, Alyward’s name is removed from WHO’s website listing advisers to the organization.
Discussion:
What is a better way for Alyward to have handled the reporter’s question?
Why do you think the WHO ignored warnings from the Taiwanese government?
Email Scammers
Remember those quaint email scams that were riddled with grammatical errors? A Wall Street Journal article describes new, sophisticated training for email scammers in Africa. A Nigerian is quoted: “You know how you guys play baseball when you are growing up? Here many of us learn fraud.”
Former scams involved people sending email asking for money for people in trouble or promising big returns on small funds. Today’s scams involve hacking into accounts and people learning about connections, for example, what vendors a company uses. A fake invoice to a known vendor is more likely to get paid. Using a grandson’s real name could lead a grandmother to Wal-Mart to send money to him, which happened to my friend’s mother.
About $1.7 billion was lost to email scams in 2019, and complaints are rising steadily. The article describes a “grooming” process “like organized crime.”
Discussion:
We hear a lot about victims’ vulnerability, but what creates a culture of scammers? What makes people vulnerable to commit this fraud? For more about this, watch The Weekly documentary about love scams on Facebook.
What’s your view of the bar chart in the WSJ article? How could it be improved? Would you prefer a more creative graphic, or does this work as is?
Comparing Headlines About the Market
How does the media describe the recent stock market decline? Let’s compare a few headlines:
Dow falls 1,191 points -- the most in history (CNN)
Coronavirus Drives Stocks Down for 6th Day and Into Correction (New York Times)
U.S. Stocks Slide Into a Correction as Virus Fears Show No Sign of Easing (Wall Street Journal)
Dow's point drop worst on record as stocks fall into correction (Fox News)
Dow drops 1190 points amid coronavirus fears, S&P 500 sees fastest correction in history (Yahoo Finance)
Of the five, Fox is the only one that didn’t place a headline about the market at the top of its web page.
Discussion:
What do you make of these headline choices, including placement? What might the wording indicate about the media group’s beliefs or audience?
In class after a previous decline, I took issue with headlines like CNN’s. Do you see an issue? (Hint: What does a raw number tell us?)
Wells Fargo Former CEO Banned
In what the Wall Street Journal calls “unprecedented” and “an extraordinary sanction for a top executive at a large bank,” former CEO John Stumpf has been barred from the banking industry. The decision—and a $17.5 million fine—were part of a settlement between Stumpf and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for millions of fake bank accounts created at Wells Fargo.
The OCC concluded that Stumpf should have known of the systemic problems and that “there was a culture in the Community Bank that resulted in systemic violations of laws and regulations.” When the scandal became public, employees complained of extreme stress because of pressure to sell more bank products. This pressure led employees to create fake accounts for customers.
Other Wells Fargo executives have been fined and charged, but none have been banned from the industry.
Discussion:
Do you think the decision is fair? Why or why not?
This decision represents a shift from the 2008/2009 financial crisis, when banks paid significant fines but very few individuals were charged. What’s your view of the change?
Emails Show USC's Potential Role in the Admissions Scandal
Actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion-designer husband Mossimo Giannulli have been charged with bribing University of Southern California athletic officials to get their daughter admitted. Now emails from USC show that the school was courting them by asking for donations and arranging for personalized campus tours. In one email, a university official wrote, “I’d also be happy to flag her application.”
A New York Times article summarizes how accused parents plan to defend themselves against charges:
Motions by several of the defendants suggest they will argue, essentially, that they could not have defrauded the university, as prosecutors say, because the university was actively seeking such donations and offering a leg-up in admissions in return.
In a statement, USC downplayed the special treatment:
“What was being offered to the Giannullis was neither special nor unique. Tours, classroom visits and meetings are routinely offered. The primary purpose of a flag is to be able to track the outcome of the admission review process. It is not a substitute for otherwise being qualified for admission to USC.”
Parents are expected to say that their donations were legitimate, but USC is expected to say that the bribery was specific to the crew team official, who “agreed to pass the couple’s two daughters off as coxswains.”
Discussion:
What’s your view of this situation? Do you agree more with the parents’ or with the school’s perspective?
What, if anything, do the school’s emails reveal? Consider this message to the parents: “Please let me know if I can be at all helpful in setting up a 1:1 opportunity for her, customized tour of campus for the family, and/or classroom visit?”
WSJ Opinion About Boeing Emails
A Wall Street Journal writer argues that Boeing employee emails “explain nothing.” A previous WSJ article concluded that emails demonstrated a “cavalier attitude towards safety,” and a Reuters article concluded that employees “distrust the 737 MAX” and “mock regulators.”
The opinion writer, Holman Jenkins Jr., argues, “all of corporate America, not just Boeing, lives these days by employing creative, freethinking people who spout off acerbically, critically and colorfully in electronic messages.” Jenkins questions the reporting of these emails and what is omitted.
Jenkins also asks why these employees didn’t write about MCAS design flaws: “If the hypercritical people seen in these messages had known about MCAS’s design flaws, it never would have gotten through.” He also notes that the only emails referring to MCAS were from 2013, although system changes were made in 2016.
Discussion:
Read Jenkins’ article. What do you consider to be his strongest and weakest arguments?
Based on his argument and your own reading of media reports, what’s your opinion about the significance of the emails?
What issues of integrity does this situation raise?
Boeing Internal Documents Don't Reflect Well on Safety
The lead article in today’s The Wall Street Journal is titled, “Internal Boeing Documents Show Cavalier Attitude to Safety.” In 150 pages of emails and other documentation, employees worry that they don’t have enough time to correct safety issues and refer to regulators as “morons” and “stupider.”
In February 2018, one employee wrote, “Would you put your family on a MAX simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.” A pilot wrote, “I still haven’t been forgiven by god for the covering up I did last year. Can’t do it one more time. Pearly gates will be closed.” Still another employee wrote, “This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”
A defense attorney argues that employees were just “blowing off steam” in their emails.
In the past few months, Boeing’s culture has come to light—once lauded as a place where people felt proud to work but now a place where people feel stressed and remorseful. CEO Doug Muilenberg has since been terminated and replaced temporarily by CFO Doug Smith.
Discussion:
Read more about the internal communications. What lessons can employees and their managers take away from this story?
What’s your view of the emails? Do they indicate big problems at the company, or is the attorney right that employees are just venting to each other? How does the concept of “cherry picking” come into play?
What should Boeing do to manage this situation? Consider this news in light of the company’s crisis communication planning you read about in another post.
JPMorgan Recorded Phone Conversation
Jimmy Kennedy, an African-American former National Football League player, tried to open a private wealth account at JPMorgan but had trouble getting attention. He recorded a conversation with an African-American employee, Richardo Peters, who said, “You’re bigger than the average person, period. And you’re also an African-American. We’re in Arizona. I don’t have to tell you about what the demographics are in Arizona. They don’t see people like you a lot.”
In a New York Times article that published the recording, Peters recounted a specific example of discrimination against a Black customer. When he was trying to bring on another new client, who had received a large settlement, his manager said, “You’ve got somebody who’s coming from Section 8, never had a nickel to spend, and now she’s got $400,000, What do you think’s going to happen with that money? It’s gone.” His manager’s position was that the customer would not invest money with the bank.
Other incidents at the bank led to Peters’ termination, and he is suing for racial discrimination. JPMorgan also recently settled a class-action lawsuit for $24 million to Black employees who claimed discrimination: according to a New York Times report, “in some cases by isolating them from colleagues and dumping them in poorer branches.”
A few days later, CEO Jamie Dimon addressed the situation in a memo to employees.
Discussion:
How do you assess this situation at JPMorgan? Read more in the NYT article.
A February Essence article describes and praises JPMorgan’s Advancing Black Pathways program to support the Black community. What’s your view of the effort in light of this news?
How do you assess CEO Jamie Dimon’s response in the memo? We don’t see the entire memo, but CNBC posted quotes.
Data in the Uber's Safety Report
Uber published its first safety report, and the company is lauded for its transparency. A Wall Street Journal article leads with the number of sexual assaults reported during the last two years: 5,981. Of course, any number is too many—no one should be assaulted in an Uber or anywhere else. And sexual assaults are notoriously underreported, so we have no idea how many have actually occurred.
At the same time, a skeptic might want to know the total number of rides in order to put the number of reports in context. The report does provide this information (see the report for footnotes):
The report makes additional attempts to put the numbers in context:
All of that work culminates in the Safety Report that we are sharing with you, the public, today. To put US safety challenges in context:
• In 2018, over 36,000 people lost their lives in car crashes in the United States alone (3)
• Approximately 20,000 people were the victims of homicide in 2017(4)
• Nearly 44% of women in the US have been a victim of sexual violence in their lifetime—which means that more than 52 million women live with that experience every day (5)
Every form of transportation is impacted by these issues. For example, the NYPD received 1,125 complaints of sex offenses in the transit system during the same time period covered by this report.(6,7) In the United States alone, more than 45 rides on Uber happen every second. At that scale, we are not immune to society’s most serious safety challenges, including sexual assault. Yet when collecting data for that portion of our report, we found there was no uniform industry standard for counting and categorizing those types of incidents.
The 84-page report is incredibly detailed and includes external reports for credibility and the number of charges for various types of assaults.
Discussion:
Analyze the report: the audience, communication objectives, organization, writing style, format. What works well, and what could be improved?
Does the context in these examples convince you that the numbers aren’t so bad? Why or why not?
Otherwise, how well does Uber address the safety issues? How do you assess the report credibility? What other questions do you have?
Fabricated Letters to the SEC
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is planning a policy change that, as a Bloomberg article describes, “would shift power from investors to corporate boards” and “limit[s] the power of dissenting shareholders.” Unfortunately, when Chairman Jay Clayton announced the change, he cited several fabricated letters of support to the SEC.
The SEC failed to recognize that many letters followed a similar template and included a random line in the mailing address—“A Coalition of Growth Companies.”
Clayton was impressed that the SEC heard from such a variety of people, such as veterans and retired police officers, but people contacted said they didn’t write the letter or agreed to having their name on a letter without understanding the implications.
The Bloomberg article reports Clayton’s response:
The SEC declined to comment on any irregularities with the letters. In a Tuesday interview, Clayton sidestepped a question about how the agency ensures comment letters are genuine. He did emphasize that the regulator’s potential revamp of shareholder voting rules are proposals, adding that there will be ample time for people on both sides to weigh in before any changes are finalized.
“We welcome input in all ways,” Clayton said in the interview with Bloomberg Television’s David Westin. “On this issue, where there are a lot of different views and a lot of different interests, we encourage people to come in and talk to us, send us their comments.”
Discussion:
How does something like this happen? Who is responsible?
Assess Clayton’s response. How well is he handling the situation? What, if anything, should he do differently?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
T-Mobile's Full-Page Ad
In signature pink, T-Mobile ran a full-page ad in Sunday’s New York Times. The ad also feels like T-Mobile because we see “From the desk of John Legere,” the charismatic CEO and frequent tweeter with comments such as, “One of our best weapons is the ineptness of the competition. #sorrynotsorry.”
For a persuasive message, the ad is curious and a good example for business communication students to analyze.
Discussion:
Who are the primary and secondary audiences for this ad?
What are T-Mobile’s communication objectives, and how well does this message achieve them?
If you were advising the company, what suggestions would you have for revisions?
SoftBank's Vague WeWork Slides
SoftBank already took a financial hit because of its investment in WeWork. Now, the company is facing criticism about its data analysis and presentation.
A deck SoftBank Group (SBG) used to justify its WeWork investment includes several “hypothetical” and vague slides, like this one.
If you’re having trouble reading the footnote, here it is:
This hypothetical illustration is provided solely for illustrative purposes, reflects the current beliefs of SBG as of the date hereof, and is based on a variety of assumptions and estimates about, among others, future operating results, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs and the timing and manner of sale, all of which may differ from the assumptions on which this hypothetical illustration is based. There are numerous factors related to the markets in general or the implementation of any specific operational plan that cannot be fully accounted for with respect to the hypothetical illustration herein. Any targets or estimates are therefore subject to a number of important risks, qualifications, limitations, and exceptions that could materially and adversely affect the hypothetical illustration presented herein. Accordingly, actual results may differ materially from the hypothetical illustration presented herein. For the avoidance of doubt, this illustration does not reflect actual results or metrics from the company.
The slide title is also odd: the illustration isn’t hypothetical, but the profitability is.
Discussion:
How might this chart affect SoftBank’s credibility?
What other examples in the SoftBank deck are problematic?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
Letter from WeWork Employees
As WeWork plans layoffs, employees are asking for input into what happens to them and their peers. Referring to themselves as WeWorkers Coalition, the employees wrote a letter to the management team.
To the We Company Management Team:
WeWork’s company values encourage us to be “entrepreneurial, inspired, authentic, tenacious, grateful and together.” Today, we are embracing these qualities wholeheartedly as we band together to ensure the well-being of our peers.
We come from many departments across the company: building maintenance, cleaning, community, design, product, engineering and more. We believe that in the upcoming weeks we have the unique opportunity to demonstrate our true values to the world. This is a company that has inspired many of us, challenged us, and has been a formative personal and professional experience for those of us who began our careers here. WeWork has been not just a workplace, but a source of friendships and inspiration along the way.
We also believe our product can have a lasting positive impact on the world. We want to improve workplace happiness for millions of office workers and support small and medium sized businesses in their entrepreneurial efforts. We have been proud to support these goals and dedicate our time and talent to achieve them. This has been our story so far.
Recently, however, we have watched as layers are peeled back one-by-one to reveal a different story. This story is one of deception, exclusion and selfishness playing out at the company’s highest levels. This is a story that reads as a negation of all our core values. But this story is not over.
Thousands of us will be laid off in the upcoming weeks. But we want our time here to have meant something. We don’t want to be defined by the scandals, the corruption, and the greed exhibited by the company’s leadership. We want to leave behind a legacy that represents the true character and intentions of WeWork employees.
In the immediate term, we want those being laid off to be provided fair and reasonable separation terms commensurate with their contributions, including severance pay, continuation of company-paid health insurance and compensation for lost equity. We are not the Adam Neumanns of this world — we are a diverse work force with rents to pay, households to support and children to raise. Neumann departed with a $1.7 billion severance package including a yearly $46 million “consulting fee” (higher than the total compensation of all but nine public C.E.O.s in the United States in 2018). We are not asking for this level of graft. We are asking to be treated with humanity and dignity so we can continue living life while searching to make a living elsewhere. In consideration of recent news, we will also need clarity around the contracts our cleaning staff will be required to sign in order to keep their jobs, which are being outsourced to a third party. Those of us who have visas through WeWork need assistance and adequate time to find a new employer to sponsor our respective visas.
In the medium term, employees need a seat at the table so the company can address a broader range of issues. We’ve seen what can happen when leadership makes decisions while employees have no voice. We will need to see more transparency and more accountability.
We also need the thousands who maintain our buildings and directly service members to receive full benefits and fair pay, rather than earning just above minimum wage.
We need allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment to be taken seriously, acted on immediately and resolved with transparency.
We need diversity and inclusion efforts to materialize into real actions, not just talking points at company meetings.
We need salary transparency so we can surface and address systemic inequalities.
We need an end to forced arbitration contracts, which strip employees of their right to pursue fair legal action against the company.
We need all of this, and more.
In the long term, we want the employees who remain at WeWork, and those who join in the future, to inherit something positive we left behind. We want them to never find themselves in this position again, and for that to happen, they need a voice.
With this letter we are introducing ourselves, the WeWorkers Coalition. We are taking full advantage of our legal right to establish this coalition, and in doing so, we hope to give the future employees of WeWork the voice we never had.
We want to work with you. Please join us in writing a better ending to this chapter of the WeWork story.
By this Thursday at 5:00 p.m. EST, we would like to receive confirmation of your receipt of this letter and an indication of your willingness to meet us.
The WeWorkers Coalition
@weworkersco • info@weworkersco.org • #weworkers-coalition
Discussion:
What principles of business writing do the employees follow?
What persuasive strategies do they use in the letter? Find examples of logical argument, emotional appeal, and credibility.
What do you consider the strongest and weakest arguments?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated in this situation?
Boeing CEO Responds to Questions
This week, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg answered lawmakers’ questions about the two Max 737 plane crashes in the past year. Facing families of deceased passengers, Muilenburg began his testimony with an apology:
“I’d like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who were lost in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accidents, including those who are here in the room today. I wanted to let you know, on behalf of myself and all of the men and women of Boeing, how deeply sorry I am. As we observe today the solemn anniversary of the loss of Lion Air Flight 610, please know that we carry the memory of these accidents, and of your loved ones, with us every day. They will never be forgotten, and these tragedies will continue to drive us to do everything we can to make our airplanes and our industry safer.”
One of the most tense moments was when Senator Ted Cruz questioned Muilenburg (see video). Muilenburg also faced criticism as he was leaving. The mother of a victim of the second crash responded to his invoking his Iowa farm background:
“Go back to Iowa. Do that.” She also said, “I don't feel like you understand. It's come to the point where you're not the person anymore to solve the situation."
Discussion:
Watch more of Muilenburg’s testimony. What are some examples of questions he addressed well, and how could he have done better?
How well does Muilenburg balance emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility in his testimony?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation and by Muilenburg’s testimony?
Muilenburg’s interaction with the mother is a difficult situation for anyone to handle, and we can certainly understand her grief and anger. How would you have responded?
CNN reports:
“In response, Muilenburg said he respects her viewpoint. "But I want to tell you the way I was brought up. And I'm just being honest here about it. I learned from my father in Iowa ... when things happen on your watch you have to own them and you have to take responsibility for fixing them," he said.
Astros Executive Fired After Yelling at Female Reporters
Brandon Taubman, assistant manager of the Houston Astros baseball team, was fired after comments made to female reporters. The situation became more complicated because the team, at first, criticized a Sports Illustrated reporter, Stephanie Apstein, and called her article, “misleading and irresponsible” and a “fabrication.”
In the team club house, after a game, Taubman yelled at the female reporters, “Thank God we got Osuna. I’m so f------ glad we got Osuna!” The MLB suspended Osuna for 75 games because of a domestic violence charge, and the Astros took a PR risk in hiring him. A Sports Illustrated writer criticizes the team’s decision:
But in truth, the Astros' front office acts as if it is tired of being yelled at about this subject. They want to be allowed to play their baseball games and pop their champagne without being forced to think about anything that happened away from the ballpark.
The team’s first response of defending Taubman didn’t stick. They later issued a statement apologizing to both the group of female reporters and Apstein.
Ernst & Young is scrubbing its website of ties to Taubman, who worked for the firm. EY is facing its own trouble following criticism about a training program for women.
Discussion:
What’s your view of the situation—both Taubman’s outburst and the Astros’ response?
Analyze the team’s statement. What leadership character dimensions does this illustrate, and how does it fall short? What could be improved?
Did EY do the right thing by trying to disassociate with Taubman? Why or why not?
LeBron James Enters the Tweet Debate
As the NBA struggles to recover after Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong protesters, LeBron James questioned Morey’s choice:
“Yes, we all do have freedom of speech. But, at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others, when you’re only thinking about yourself. . . . I believe he wasn’t educated on the situation at hand, and he spoke. And so many people could have been harmed, not only financially, but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful. . . .”
The Wall Street Journal reports that people were “stunned” by his comment because James is typically careful about his public comments.
Discussion:
What’s your view of James’ commenting on the situation? Should he have avoided commenting? Why or why not?
What’s your view of his comments? How well did he handle the situation?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by James’ comments?
NBA Tweetstorm
The NBA is thrust into a political quagmire after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of the Hong Kong protesters: '“Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.” The tweet has since been deleted.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is dancing a line between protecting Morey’s free speech and staving off China’s backlash. Critics say the league is driven by profit instead of principle. He has tried to clarify his position:
“It is inevitable that people around the world — including from America and China — will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences. However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way.”
At this point, The Wall Street Journal reports better news:
“The situation appears to have de-escalated. After a week of blistering anti-NBA rhetoric in Chinese media, the government is signaling that it’s time to cool it, a message that includes the vitriol directed at the Rockets, according to one person familiar with the situation.”
But the Journal also acknowledges: “China’s love affair with the Rockets might not be the same again.”
Discussion:
Should Morey have avoided sending the tweet? Why or why not?
How do you assess the league’s response to the situation?
Analyze Silver’s news conference. What did he do well, and what could he have done differently?
WeWork: "Humbler"
Several articles in the past few weeks have scolded WeWork CEO Adam Neumann and the investors who followed his story.
The Wall Street Journal was the first to describe Neumann’s odd behavior and published another article, “WeWork Investors Turned Off by ‘Sloppy’ IPO Filings.” The recent article explains one problem in the filings (shown below):
“A section headed ‘illustrative annual economics’ that assumed 100% workstation utilization vanished, for example, as did two graphs portraying a typical location going from ‘-$’ to ‘+$,’ with no y-axis showing the actual dollar amounts being depicted.”
A New York Times article, “Was WeWork Ever Going to Work?” criticizes investors for missing obvious problems with the company’s initial business plan, such as the reliance on start-up revenue when most entrepreneurial ventures fail. According to this report, it took people finally looking at the data to realize how much We is losing and how hard it will be for the company to succeed.
The article includes other examples of investors’ blind exuberance:
“It is not merely money that separates the ruling class from the rest of the country. Often it seems as if it is the gaping difference in the application of common sense. Ultimately, it was the bankers, technocrats, statesmen and acolytes of the data-junkie class who were willing to believe that Elizabeth Holmes, a 19-year-old college dropout who thought a black turtleneck would make her Steve Jobs, was going to revolutionize blood-testing. It didn’t seem to matter that she could not deliver any real evidence to prove it.”
An Inc. article, “The Future of WeWork: Leaner, Humbler, and Duller,” suggests a new path for We. The author suggests less hype, fewer employees, and more discipline for the company to survive.
Discussion:
Who do you blame for WeWork’s failed IPO?
If you believe the New York Times article, investors are gullible. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why might this be the case?
Read the “Note”—the fine print—under the table, shown above. How do you interpret this information?
What should We do now to build credibility and save the business?
Forever 21 Files for Bankruptcy
Retailer Forever 21 has filed for bankruptcy, and employees are not happy. In its Letter to Customers, posted on the website, the company explains the process:
This does NOT mean that we are going out of business – on the contrary, filing for bankruptcy protection is a deliberate and decisive step to put us on a successful track for the future.
Hundreds of employees are planning to unionize with United for Respect, which also represented employees from Sears and Toys R Us during their bankruptcies.
The Washington Post reports employees’ reactions to the Forever 21 decision:
[S]everal employees cited past instances where Forever 21 swiftly closed stores with little warning or explanation, which prompted their concerns over how the company would treat employees amid bankruptcy.
Unions are seeing opportunities in retail employees. Private-section union membership has been shrinking in the U.S. and is now only 6.4%, compared to 33.9% of government workers. As retail employees get discouraged by their employers, union organizing activity has been increasing.
Discussion:
Analyze the Letter to Customers. Which principles of communicating bad news are followed? How could the message be improved?
Explain the ethics of a company filing for bankruptcy. Use an ethical decision-model, such as that in Chapter 1, to determine the effects.
What’s your view of retail employees unionizing? What are the benefits to employees and potential downsides of union activity and of forming a union?